You are on page 1of 7

Rosa-Lee Jimenez

Pols 331 E. Ertle

Literature Review
Introduction:
During the 19th and 20th century many people gave up or turned
away from those suffering from alcohol and other drug addictions
(White). This was known as the prohibitionist vision. This vision did not
only demonize those suffering from drug use, but it turned the
community and its support away. The prohibition eras goals were to let
those with addictions die off and prevent the usage of drugs with the
prohibition policy and strict control on illicit drugs (White). The
purposes of this research are to see how communities can influence
mobilization and promote recovery. The prohibitionist vision is clearly
an example of how the community can inhibit addiction recovery,
however there are several methods to promote recovery and increase
mobilization.
Models of Treatment:
There are a few theories such as the medical model,
psychological model, psychiatric model, social model, community
healing, social development strategy, community treatment model,
and coerced treatment. However, some of these models and theories
are similar to the tee. For instance, the community treatment model
consists of the medical model, social model, and psychological model.

Also, the psychiatric model is by Oreskovic, however, Wangs definition


of the psychological is quite similar. However, Oreskovic brings the
topic of abstinence into his model, which does not correlate with
Wangs definition. Whites community healing/community guides are
incredibility close to the social model and community treatment model.
As for the social development strategy, it mainly focuses on children
and procedures for adolescents. Ultimately, all of these models and
theories really focus on prevention and mobilization of the community.
Wang describes the medical, psychological, social, and the
community treatment models. Furthermore, Wang explains that the
U.S. has three different viewpoints of treatment, which include the
medical model, psychological model, & social model. The medical
model defines drug addiction as a disease, thus the type of treatment
tends to involve outpatient or open-ward medical treatment. As for
psychological model, its treatment is for the client to go under
psychotherapy to understand their reason for drug use and correct
such behaviors. Lastly, the social model uses the method of treatment
within a community camp or boot camp (social groups). As for the
community treatment model, it combines all three of the United States
models as one. The mechanism of the camp approach is to reinforce
existing positive social bonds in the community to facilitate the process
of rehabilitation (Wang). This model really focuses on how the
community can influence and promote rehabilitation.

Manager et al. does focus on adolescent drug use, which adds


different type of knowledge of addiction. However, even with the focus
on adolescents the authors still focus on a mobilizing the community in
helping in the process of prevention. This journal also brings up the
idea of prevention, as where my other journals discuss types of
rehabilitation and how successful these models are. The topic of
prevention is not needed for my research, however the steps and
process used in the program and their focus on adolescent drug use
adds information on the influence of community based programs.
White also believes in a community related or based procedure
for rehabilitation. His model is known as the community recovery
capital, which focuses on health and clinical models. The health model
focuses on environmental strategies for the management of alcohol
and other drug problems while the clinical model focuses on
professional treatment for addicts (White). In addition, White also
brings up the aspect of abstinence support in the journey of recovery.
Oreskovic et al. mainly focuses on a psychiatric model, however,
the authors also mentioned the aspect of abstinence-based programs.
However, when explaining how important abstinence-based programs
are in long-term recovery, they do mention that abstinence-based
programs are not for everyone. The psychiatric model puts a lot of
pressure on the individual to correct their behaviors and personal
motives. Furthermore, these authors go in-depth to explain how

efficient social pressures are in the process of recovery. In particular,


Oreskovic et al. explain the differences between those who voluntary
participate in treatment and those who are coerced. With that being
said, these authors also address the philosophical and ethical concerns
of coerced treatment.
Recovery:
White has the best and clearest explanation of recovery. He
states that recovery as a stage-dependent process. The stages consist
of stage one: destabilization of addiction, stage two: recovery initiation
and stabilization, and stage three: recovery maintenance. In addition
to these three stages White is a big supporter of social support. He
adds that social support is also better for adolescents too. Also, he
states that abstinence-specific support is important for long-term
recovery. Ultimately, White stresses that personal recovery can only
flourishes in communities that create the physical, psychological, and
cultural space for recovery to grow and sustain itself.
However, Oreskovic and White bring up topics that do not
coincide with the recovery process, but are important to mention when
discussing recovery methods and strategies. For instance, Oreskovic
mentions the topic of chronic abuse. In particular, he discusses that
due to the usage of drugs these people are unable to begin with such a
program. Due to the damage, these types of people have poor or
impaired judgments that do not allow them to understand or

participate in recovery programs. As for White, he explains the topic of


spontaneous remission or natural recovery. Natural recovery is defined
by individuals who have low to moderate addiction problems and that
can be resolved through nonprofessional recovery supports within
their family, community, or brief professional intervention (White).
Ultimately, all of these studies emphasize establishing a
relationship between community and recovery. With this relationship is
establishes improvement in drug use, medical, family, and psychiatric
problems (White). Furthermore, these studies convey how these types
of improvements can affect social mobilization.
Effects on Mobilization:
Wang gives great examples of how those suffering with addiction
negatively effect mobilization. For instance, in Shanwei, China there
was young couple with two children worked very hard during the
Economic Reform. They saved money, bought two grocery stores and
one fish farm on the seaside. Once they started using drugs, they had
to sell their properties one by one in order to pay for the drugs
(Wang). This example conveys a decrease in economic growth, which is
a key aspect in social mobilization.
Another aspect of social mobilization is the level of crime activity.
With that being stated, drug use is often related to crime (Wang). In
particular, high or low criminal activity will either decrease or increase
mobilization. Low criminal activity would produce an increase in

mobilization, which implies that high criminal activity will decrease


mobilization. Great examples of a high criminal activity that is
influenced by drug use are prostitution, arson, theft, and murder.
Wang gave an example of how a mother killed her son because she
would rather her son be dead then use drugs. Although this example is
not how a drug user committed a crime (because there are plenty of
those), its an example of how drug use affected others poorly.
Ultimately, these effects on mobilization and data retrieved it
conveys how a decrease in addiction would increase mobilization. For
instance, with lower drug use and addiction, Oreskovic describes how
such a decrease would make improvements in drug use, medical,
family, and psychiatric problems.
In addition, Wang introduces the idea of an increase in employment.
Conclusively, with positive effects on economic growth, criminal
activity, employment, and personal growths (all aspects of social
mobilization) then there should be an increase in mobilization and vice
versa.
Gaps:
Manager et al. explains prevention programs for adolescents,
however these authors do not really go in-depth about adolescent
treatment procedures. Thus a gap I have in my research is adolescent
versus adult treatment. For instance, are there any differences
between the structures of recovery programs? Or how should

adolescent treatment be handled, with the same treatment? In addition


to adolescent versus adult treatment, theres a gap in how addiction
begins. In other words, I do have a study that focuses on adolescents
however it does not really introduce the topic of how adolescents begin
their addictions. In addition, assume addiction does not start at the
adolescent stage then that is also another a gap in my research.
Oreskovic et al. touches on the subject in chronic abuse and how
some people are unable to proceed with a program. However, these
authors do not describe any procedures on dealing with these types of
people and how the judicial system handles these types of cases.
Overall there are a few gaps in my research and these gaps would be
interesting to discover, however doing further research into the
differences of treatment, how addictions begin, and the procedures of
how chronic abuser are dealt with, will not further my knowledge in the
correlation between drug addiction and social mobility.
Conclusion:
Each of these studies conveys the relationship between the
community and recovery. Furthermore, these studies give a
background of how mobilization is effected by drug abuse and
addiction. In the present study, Ill display the relationship between
drug abuse and social mobilization. In particular, Ill declare if the
relationship between drug abuse and social mobilization has a positive
or negative correlation.